War of the cheapies - Kodak Gold 400 vs Fuji Superia 400

[shadowfox]

Originally Posted by AFenvy

I definitely agree! Where are you guys getting good color out of the Superia? Mine is generally a crapshoot with most of the roll looking terrible and a select few having good color. It only looks good in a select few lighting situations.

*Fresh* Superia 200 is really really good.
With the lights I have, I can't get anything good using whatever 400 ISO.
I like anything 200 ASA.

[PatrickT]

Originally Posted by divewizard

Kodak Gold is obsolete. The new film is is Ultramax 400. I believe that Ultramax 400 is the same film as Portra 400. The films are speced just slightly diffrently becasue they are tested slightly differently. The differences are just marketing specmanship.
It does not make sense for Kodak to run multiple production lines any more. I was never happy with Gold 400, but the new Ultramax gives the same results as Portra. You can see some shots from my first roll of Ultramax here.

Is this a guess, or do you have som insider information? Just curious.

[wblynch]

They are all great. Buy more. Shoot more. Keep the circle alive.

[wray]

Kodak does not list 'Gold 400' only 'Gold 200' on their site!

[HHPhoto]

Personally I prefer Superia X-Tra to Gold 400 (which is "Farbwelt 400" here in Germany; almost the same film, colors are a little bit adjusted for the German and Austrian market).

Superia X-Tra 400 has better detail rendition (finer grain, higher resolution, better edge sharpness) compared to Gold 400.
The Kodak film has a more warmer color balance. Superia is a bit more neutral.
Both have quite high saturation and contrast.

I am using the Superia often in some cheaper cams for less serious stuff.
For my serious work I go for the best quality available in ISO 400 color film: Provia 400X.
It's the finest grain ISO 400 color film. And the one with highest resolution and best sharpness.
Natural, vibrant colors and excellent skin tones.

Projected with a good projection lens on the screen at 1,50m or 1,75m width the quality is absolutely outstanding for an ISO 400 film.
If you make a poster of the same size from Portra 400 or Pro 400H, than there is just no competition:
Portra and Pro400H are looking awful compared to the projected 400X slide.

Cheers, Jan

[Pete B]

I accidently got some Superia 200 at half price (don't ask).
Pete

[kanzlr]

I love Superia 200.
It scans nicely and I like the colors, even the resolution is fine for my LS-40

[Photo_Smith]

Not sure about the 'Fuji too green' type comments I've always found it pretty easy to get great colour with both, the Kodak might be slightly higher contrast, this being a moot point with digital processing. I think some peoples exposure, process and workflow may be the issue.
Anyhow here is Superia 400


I don't find the colours (green and reds) too unnatural of course most of it will be taste and/or workflow skill/ability that drives choices.
YMMV as they say on the internet :-)

[bfffer]

fuji all the way!!

[Gabriel M.A.]

Kodak Gold 400 (aka MAX 400) "vs." Fuji Superia 400: Kodak is grainy compared to Fuji Superia.

When I first used Fuji ten years ago, I promised myself never to shoot their C-41 films with ISO higher than 200. For B&W, I think Kodak is far better than Fuji, with the only exception of TMax 400 vs. Acros Neopan 400.

[NickTrop]

All about film speed. Kodak <= 400 asa. Always. Fuji rules => 800... in color print. Not that Kodak 800 is bad or that slower Fuji is bad - no they're both fine stocks at any speed, but Fuji edges out Kodak at high speed, Kodak edges out Fuji at slower speeds in color print film. Period.

[zupstermix]

Haven't tried Fuji 400. But here are some more examples for Kodak Max 400:

M2-KODAKULTRAMAX400-000026 by zupstermix, on Flickr


M2-KODAKULTRAMAX400-000013 by zupstermix, on Flickr


M2-KODAKULTRAMAX400-000034 by zupstermix, on Flickr

[malkmata]

Kodak Ultra Max 400


04_3B by malikmata52, on Flickr


Maritime Craftsman by malikmata52, on Flickr


Treasure Chests by malikmata52, on Flickr

[Danlo]

I quite like the Superia X-tra 400 pushed to 1600.
One shot I took at a thai-box club in Sweden:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hogberg...in/photostream

[Sparrow]

... Fuji is still the better film, sorry

[everythingy]

Fuji Superia gets my vote for its lovely colors, but I am perfectly happy with using Kodak Gold aswell.

[ray*j*gun]

I like them both but I feel the Kodak gives a more natural color, The Fuji always looks a little over-saturated to me.

[ScottAlexander]

I actually really adore Kodak 200 @ 2.99 from B&H (36)

Especially for summer. Pushing it one stop isn't so bad either, if needed.

[grantb]

I don't see how anybody can compare the subtle differences of these films unless they are doing their own processing under very tight controls, or maybe having it done at the same pro lab. I shot a 4 pack of Superia 400 Xtra and had it developed at four different places with four noticeably (if not radically) different results. Then I shot more and took it back to my favorite two places... different results again. I used the same camera, but acutance, grain size, and color cast were different but consistent across each roll.

Perhaps this accounts for the divergent opinions in this thread.

[Sparrow]

... perhaps you need a better lab, mine gives pretty much consistent results

[grantb]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

... perhaps you need a better lab, mine gives pretty much consistent results

That's my point. Some comments on this thread claim that x film has a y color cast, etc. Out of the same 4 pack of Superia, I got results ranging from very natural or even vivid colors, to dark muted colors with a green or orange color cast. Other factors such as grain size were different between rolls as well.

If I got one roll out of four with a green color cast and one with correct colors, it's probably not caused by the film. Surely different films have different characteristics, but developing is a big factor and probably accounts in part for the formation of such divergent opinions on these films.

[BardParker]

I like both, but recently bought some Kodak 400 Gold in 36 exposure rolls for really cheap at B&H. I like the results:

[IMG]
1946 Globe Swift by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/64835566@N04/]

[gb hill]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

... Fuji is still the better film, sorry

I really like the look you get out of Fuji Superia Stewart. Do you shoot at box speed?

[Pioneer]

Ok, for starters, I rarely shoot ISO 400 films in my 35mm. I know that a lot of people use it for almost everything, but I don't use it very often. If I am going to load film for daylight work then it will be a slower speed film, usually ISO 100. If I do go inside then I pop on a flash. If I know I will need a high speed film in advance then I almost always go to Fuji 800, or even 1600 (I still have some of that left in the freezer.)

Of all the consumer films I absolutely love Kodak 100 and 200 films the most, but Fuji 400 and 800 are the tops in the higher speeds. I just cannot get consistent results out of Kodak UMax 400 no matter what I try with it. The best results I have gotten from Kodak 400 is when I de-rate it and shoot it at ISO 200. But if I am going to do that I may as well shoot Kodak 200.

Slide film is an entirely different matter. I love Fuji Provia 400, I just wish it were not so expensive to use.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by gb hill

I really like the look you get out of Fuji Superia Stewart. Do you shoot at box speed?

It's my film of choice for very bright conditions (the Med), it's so resistant to overexposure ... I'm using meter-less cameras so I don't really set an actual speed, but I'd happily go 4 or 5 stops into the shadows and still expect to get some detail in sunlight highlights, so to answer the question I overexpose a lot, mostly ...

... of course as with anything else photographic the processing has to be consistent and good quality or one gets the problems Grantb encountered